Natural Selection is not on our side

[Suew0]

As seen in the commentary:

"There exists right now an extensive and powerful global community that puts everyone in touch, enables almost-instantaneous transfer of data and ideas, and forces reality on us all. It’s getting harder to be a fool. Those religious zealots who choose to mumble against progress, cannot long prevail; their days are numbered by simple Darwinian selection, though we might wish it were a faster process. "

I find that a bit hard to believe. I see no evidence that religious fanaticism is in any danger of dying out. There is nothing selecting against those sort of whackos.

And if he is referring to the internet, I *really* see no sign that it is putting people in touch with reality. Quite the contrary. More likely, it makes it easier for crackpots and nutcases to find more of their own kind and band together, thus reinforcing their delusion.

[Hawk one]

We-ell... I think that in this case, the selection is not so much against the people as against the ideas that they hold. Or in other words, it's the "creationism" meme that is being attacked by all the wealth of information, while the genes of the person holding a creationist position will tend to spread (or not) based on other variables.

I can't say for sure if that's what Randi meant to say in his comment (perhaps one of us should ask him about this?), but at least it's how I would describe the situation.

Mind you, the creationist meme is of course also trying to use the net to spread around. I can't really say which way things are going, but history tends to show that notions that tend to get increasingly fanatic* as proper information is revealed, eventually tends to get marginalised until there's only a few people holding the position. But the key word is "eventually".

* i.e. you have to stay increasingly loyal to one text/interpretation only even when the real world suggests otherwise, until it gets to the point where it will be fanatic to hold the position.

[Crowbot]

Woo-Woo-Whackos can still make websites. Fortunately for the skeptic crowd, their websites end up looking like this:
http://nicejewishpsychic.com/biography.html

Anybody who would attribute credibility to such a site...well...deserves what is coming to them. I'd say natural selection is on our side ;)

[PBTree]

Woo-Woo-Whackos can still make websites. Fortunately for the skeptic crowd, their websites end up looking like this:
http://nicejewishpsychic.com/biography.html

Anybody who would attribute credibility to such a site...well...deserves what is coming to them. I'd say natural selection is on our side ;)

I wonder?

Would the photo of her* on her* website be an advert for natural selection or creationism?


*assumption

[rjh01]

Study your history. People like us used to be burned alive at the stake for being the wrong religion or questioning the status quo. Now we can say what we want to anyone who is prepared to listen. Church attendance is not compulsory. In Australia (and many other developed countries) religion is slowly dieing out. Laws that existed purely for religious reasons are slowly being removed.

[Darth Rotor]

Study your history. People like us used to be burned alive at the stake for being the wrong religion or questioning the status quo. Now we can say what we want to anyone who is prepared to listen. Church attendance is not compulsory. In Australia (and many other developed countries) religion is slowly dieing out. Laws that existed purely for religious reasons are slowly being removed.
The religious of all sorts are going to win the battle of the cradle. In a democracy, that tends to present an issue regarding voting blocs. It also makes for options to use a Constitutional referendum (per the rules in the Constitution) to amend the Constitution toward a more "religious friendly" setting, or in some way as "clarifying" the establishment clause. Other amendments have been changed, as have other articles, by the amendment process.

You think this is idle whimsey? In twenty years, things will look rather different, demographically.

Look at breeding rates among the "rational" people who you know, and the "irrational" religious sorts you know, and consider how the demographics are trending. :cool:

DR

[Crowbot]

Look at breeding rates among the "rational" people who you know, and the "irrational" religious sorts you know, and consider how the demographics are trending.

Most of the rational, intelligent people I know do not have children. I do know quite a few ignorant, woo-embracing, church-attending, single parents though. 4 to be exact, with seven children among them. One of them is even currently pregnant from an unknown source (something tells me it wasnt immaculate conception though).

Maybe South Florida is a bad example...But following your logic from my viewpoint, humanity is doomed.

[Plastictowel]

I personally think it's in the favor of the critical thinkers. But only to a certain degree, I don't think america will be consumed with 75% atheist, and agnostic where is it's currently 75% christian. I think we'll balance out to 50,50. Dawkins gives a prime example of this using the "dove" and the "hawk" strategy of survival in the selfish gene. Although the hawk will prevail for a long period of time over the Dove because it's more aggressive and in your face, over time the dove will re-claim it's place in society and slowly set the balance to 50,50. Of course he goes into some math to explain why this is the case, and i despise math.

Plus come on we have adult swim now, let's all join in prayer that our childrens children wake up at 3am and accidently turn to cartoon network.
Amen

[Darth Rotor]

But following your logic from my viewpoint, humanity is doomed.
That prediction presumes that religion is, on the balance, a malovent influence rather than benign. Given the mix of religions that are yet at odds with one another, in particular Christianity and Islam (still! after all these years) and adding Hindi and Muslim antipathy as represented in Pakistan and India, with nukes, your gloomy forecast bears considering.

The hope of a great awakening along more Unitarian lines seems slim.

More poignantly, where will you spend your million dollar prize for clearly seeing the future, with most of the earth irradiated? :eek:

DR

[Dunstan]

I think this kind of analysis is really mistaken.

First, I'm no expert on natural selection, but the whole "people without X are outbreed people with X, therefore X will become an extinct characteristic" strikes me as flawed science. If that were true, homosexuality (assuming it's genetically-based) should have been bred out millennia ago.

Second, I think it's erroneous to treat critical thinking or atheism or any other meme, mindset, or ideology as if they were genetically-based characteristics that can be "bred out." Even allowing for the fact that parents have a big influence beyond the genetic one, they're still not the only influence. Read the "atheism conversion" threads on this or other forums, and you'll find plenty of people who grew up in very religious homes. How many skeptics have parents who believe in various forms of woo? Even if woos are "out-breeding" skeptics, I would bet that the number of woo --> skeptic conversions exceeds the reverse by enough to make up for it.

[Darth Rotor]

Even allowing for the fact that parents have a big influence beyond the genetic one, they're still not the only influence. Read the "atheism conversion" threads on this or other forums, and you'll find plenty of people who grew up in very religious homes. How many skeptics have parents who believe in various forms of woo? Even if woos are "out-breeding" skeptics, I would bet that the number of woo --> skeptic conversions exceeds the reverse by enough to make up for it.
I would be interested to see how one could colletc stats on the so called "woo --> skeptic" conversion, and the other way around, like C.S. Lewis' conversion to Christianity from atheist.

As to your final point, well said. The is nothing quite so powerful as an idea. I hear a couple of religions made quite a stir along those lines, as did a guy named Marx. :D

DR

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you've introduced a fallacious argument here. You've described one tiny piece of the giant Internet and volume of knowledge pie as if it were the only piece.

[rwguinn]

As seen in the commentary:

"There exists right now an extensive and powerful global community that puts everyone in touch, enables almost-instantaneous transfer of data and ideas, and forces reality on us all. It’s getting harder to be a fool. Those religious zealots who choose to mumble against progress, cannot long prevail; their days are numbered by simple Darwinian selection, though we might wish it were a faster process. "

I find that a bit hard to believe. I see no evidence that religious fanaticism is in any danger of dying out. There is nothing selecting against those sort of whackos.

And if he is referring to the internet, I *really* see no sign that it is putting people in touch with reality. Quite the contrary. More likely, it makes it easier for crackpots and nutcases to find more of their own kind and band together, thus reinforcing their delusion.

Ah, yes--
But like a pendulum being shortened, what you are seeing is the frantic throes of a dying system.
They get together, reinforce their own delusions, and are thus contained...
Or so the story goes. probably closer to correct than not, but that is only an opinion.

[Dunstan]

I think you've introduced a fallacious argument here. You've described one tiny piece of the giant Internet and volume of knowledge pie as if it were the only piece.

Are you replying to me? I can't tell.

Assuming that you are, let me clarify: I'm not claiming "hey, look at the JREF forum, we're winning the conversion battle." I'm just citing it as evidence that the beliefs of the parents are not necessarily determinative of the beliefs of the child, and therefore the "breeding" argument is overstated.

And Darth Rotor, I probably need to rethink the question of woo/skeptic conversions, because I think it probably depends on the flavor of woo. And the vast majority of people are in the middle ground: they aren't rigorous critical thinkers or skeptics as we would consider them. They might grow up believing in woo1, woo2, but not any other forms, then decide that woo1 is nonsense, and then decide that newly-popular woo693 is true.

And that's not such a big deal in my opinion. If, as Penn said at TAM3, "everybody's got a gree-gree," it's not the end of the world. It's when large portions of the population have the SAME gree-gree (e.g. "intelligent design") that trouble occurs.

[AWPrime]

Unless humanity evolves beyond the need for religion, I don't see it dying out.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you replying to me? I can't tell.
....So sorry, no. I was replying to the OP.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unless humanity evolves beyond the need for religion, I don't see it dying out.Eventually it will.

[Skeptic Ginger]

As seen in the commentary:

"There exists right now an extensive and powerful global community that puts everyone in touch, enables almost-instantaneous transfer of data and ideas, and forces reality on us all. It’s getting harder to be a fool. Those religious zealots who choose to mumble against progress, cannot long prevail; their days are numbered by simple Darwinian selection, though we might wish it were a faster process. "

I find that a bit hard to believe. I see no evidence that religious fanaticism is in any danger of dying out. There is nothing selecting against those sort of whackos.

And if he is referring to the internet, I *really* see no sign that it is putting people in touch with reality. Quite the contrary. More likely, it makes it easier for crackpots and nutcases to find more of their own kind and band together, thus reinforcing their delusion.
Somehow I totally mis-read this, so forget my post about the fallacious arguments and let me start over.

The Internet can do both, it can put people in touch with like minded crackpots and it can enable the sharing of valid ideas and data.

It's important we don't let those crackpots or the power seekers use the Internet and strengthen their positions. I think we are ahead.

When some BS goes on the news, hundreds of little investigators and observers are on their keyboards in a flash calling the BSers on their claims. I am amazed at how something I read on a forum, my son read on the forums he frequents.

But if the commercial interests succeed in controlling any of the data flow, the Internet will end up like TV and radio and news papers, just another mouthpiece for marketers to manipulate consumers.

[Dark Jaguar]

If one is to go with the meme idea here, I'd say that the internet is the death of selective pressure. I mean, EVERYTHING online is preserved in all it's triteness.

[Zygar]

But if the commercial interests succeed in controlling any of the data flow, the Internet will end up like TV and radio and news papers, just another mouthpiece for marketers to manipulate consumers.

The internet is already just another mouthpiece for marketers to manipulate consumers. It is also a breeding ground for any and every other kind of communication. Considering that it started out as an information marketplace, that is what it will remain. No one will ever be able to turn the internet into a facist marketing compound that prevents the free exchange of ideas. So long as two people can communicate with eachother in any form, free exchange of ideas will occur.

My point is that it goes both ways. We will never prevent crackpots from using the internet, nor will they ever prevent us. The beauty of an information marketplace such as the internet is that as long as the truth is available, when people are ready to hear it, they can find it. The religious zealots will never disappear completely because even if they do, some new crackpot will come along and resurrect (oooh nice pun) some long dead religion, or create a totally new one. But I do think that the majority of the world will eventually come around. But, since my crystal ball seems to be broken, I will just have to wait and see.

[Plastictowel]

I think this kind of analysis is really mistaken.

First, I'm no expert on natural selection, but the whole "people without X are outbreed people with X, therefore X will become an extinct characteristic" strikes me as flawed science. If that were true, homosexuality (assuming it's genetically-based) should have been bred out millennia ago.

Second, I think it's erroneous to treat critical thinking or atheism or any other meme, mindset, or ideology as if they were genetically-based characteristics that can be "bred out." Even allowing for the fact that parents have a big influence beyond the genetic one, they're still not the only influence. Read the "atheism conversion" threads on this or other forums, and you'll find plenty of people who grew up in very religious homes. How many skeptics have parents who believe in various forms of woo? Even if woos are "out-breeding" skeptics, I would bet that the number of woo --> skeptic conversions exceeds the reverse by enough to make up for it.


So what is it that seperates us from the easy to push over, faith loving, blind believing religious? Yes I "grew" up catholic, but I never liked going to Church, I wasn't interested, and by the time I was 15-16 I realized it was ALL crap. That seems to be the story with most skeptics, even from the get go they really wheren't that into it. You say it isn't something that starts at birth that are we pre-proned to being skeptics, but I don't know what else it could be. I was even taken in briefly from 5-7 by a STRONG, fanatic baptist family, who tryed so dangeriously hard to convert me, literally for over a year, but it didn't work. And I had a childs mind at the time, hell shouldn't it of worked?

[Crowbot]

And I had a childs mind at the time, hell shouldn't it of worked?

It really should have worked. The force is strong in this one.

[Plastictowel]

Shouldn't it be the dark side?
I'm confuzzled.

[Zygar]

So what is it that seperates us from the easy to push over, faith loving, blind believing religious? Yes I "grew" up catholic, but I never liked going to Church, I wasn't interested, and by the time I was 15-16 I realized it was ALL crap. That seems to be the story with most skeptics, even from the get go they really wheren't that into it. You say it isn't something that starts at birth that are we pre-proned to being skeptics, but I don't know what else it could be. I was even taken in briefly from 5-7 by a STRONG, fanatic baptist family, who tryed so dangeriously hard to convert me, literally for over a year, but it didn't work. And I had a childs mind at the time, hell shouldn't it of worked?

I grew up in the extremely fanatical state of Utah in a strongly Mormon family. I was always extremely skeptical of stuff. I can remember staring at the infamous tongue map in first grade and wondering where the hell anyone would get such an idiotic idea, since it was obvious I could taste salt on the tip of my tongue...

When I was in high school I began to wonder about various things, and I determinedly began looking into each of the major religions of the world. I can honestly say that it took me a few years of determined research and long nights trying to understand the nature of god before I finally realized that it was all a crock. I am now thoroughly athiest, but the brainwashing one can recieve at the hands of religion is certainly strong enough to compell even the smartest and most skeptical among us in our early years.

[Dunstan]

So what is it that seperates us from the easy to push over, faith loving, blind believing religious? Yes I "grew" up catholic, but I never liked going to Church, I wasn't interested, and by the time I was 15-16 I realized it was ALL crap. That seems to be the story with most skeptics, even from the get go they really wheren't that into it. You say it isn't something that starts at birth that are we pre-proned to being skeptics, but I don't know what else it could be. I was even taken in briefly from 5-7 by a STRONG, fanatic baptist family, who tryed so dangeriously hard to convert me, literally for over a year, but it didn't work. And I had a childs mind at the time, hell shouldn't it of worked?

I don't know, there might be a lot of complex personality and environmental factors at work. Just because we can't pinpoint exactly why religion didn't take with one specific person (you) doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say "must be genetic."

It's like saying "I fell in love with my [wife/girlfriend] but not with any of these other women who on paper were just as suitable and attractive, therefore I must have been genetically predisposed to fall in love with her."

I'm not saying it absolutely can't be genetic, just that I don't see any reason to draw that conclusion.

[Zygar]

I don't know, there might be a lot of complex personality and environmental factors at work. Just because we can't pinpoint exactly why religion didn't take with one specific person (you) doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say "must be genetic."

It's like saying "I fell in love with my [wife/girlfriend] but not with any of these other women who on paper were just as suitable and attractive, therefore I must have been genetically predisposed to fall in love with her."

I'm not saying it absolutely can't be genetic, just that I don't see any reason to draw that conclusion.

Precisely my opinion. I didn't become a skeptic due to genetics. My parents are both religious. But I did become a skeptic due to a series of chance occurances, and due to my own curiousity and critical thinking skills. Maybe curiousity is genetic, but the way I was taught to think about the world by my parents (ironically enough) and teachers are the reasons I developed the critical thinking skills.

As for the chance occurances, I won't go in depth here, but they definitely were not genetic. Although I'm sure some woo-woo or another has found the luck gene...

[Plastictowel]

I know I was being semi sarcastic, but I do want to point out lots of people are saying "well at a young age I was a curious/skeptical person." That's fine, but it's odd that at a young age you/I were skeptical as opposed to the other 90% of people who wheren't and blindly followed what they were told.

[Zygar]

Good point. Perhaps we should say people are genetically predisposed to becoming skeptics. Blind obedience does certainly appear to be genetic.

[Victor Meldrew]

Interesting thread.

Can anyone explain why religion is still so important in the USA?

Here in the UK, as in many other nations, religion is slowly dying out. Why does it seem to be gaining ground in the USA?

(I don't have a smart answer to this up my sleeve : I'm just interested in your opinions)

[IllegalArgument]

Interesting thread.

Can anyone explain why religion is still so important in the USA?

Here in the UK, as in many other nations, religion is slowly dying out. Why does it seem to be gaining ground in the USA?

(I don't have a smart answer to this up my sleeve : I'm just interested in your opinions)

Competition, we never had a state religion, so the sects had to compete against each other to survive. They are much more better at marketing themselves.

It's just my theory.

[Victor Meldrew]

But isn't Christianity your "state religion"?

Many people in the UK would call themselves Christians, if you asked them, but they don't go to church or talk about god, its just something that they were baptised into.

From the little (and it is a little!) I know, a much larger majority of Americans attend church services than here in the UK.

Answers on a postcard please......!

[IllegalArgument]

But isn't Christianity your "state religion"?

Many people in the UK would call themselves Christians, if you asked them, but they don't go to church or talk about god, its just something that they were baptised into.

From the little (and it is a little!) I know, a much larger majority of Americans attend church services than here in the UK.

Answers on a postcard please......!

First thing, US is supposed to be religion neutral or indifferent, there never was and there should never be a "Church of the US". It's clearly stated in the Treaty of Tripoli, that the US is not founded as a Christian nation. See Act 11.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Yes, Christianity is the domination religous in the US. What most people don't realize, there are hundreds if not thousands of denominations, which don't neccessary agree or even like each other.

Any Protestant group vs Catholics for instance. An overgeneralization but it makes the point.

Baptist are just one example of a large evangelical protestant denomination. Which I do think exist in any large numbers in the EU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

[Zygar]

I think another reason is that many of America's settlers and immigrants over the centuries have come to the U.S. to escape religious persecution. As a result, many of areas of the nation have one or more strong religious groups that have been settled in that area for centuries. This causes social groups to form which are based upon the local religion.

Also, due to the freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state, religious groups have had to becoming marketing experts (as IllegalArgument pointed out). Every denomination has it's own way of sucking in followers and keeping them. Also, despite these laws, individual religious groups often have indirect partial control of the government, which has caused such issues as the Intelligent Design debate and the gay marriage constitutional amendment proposals.

For example, in my home state of Utah, Mormons have such a strong presence that, although the LDS church itself does not have political stances, the church policies often enter political issues. This is why Utah has extremely strict liquor laws, is the only state in the U.S. that bans all forms of gambling including horse races and lotteries, etc. These sorts of laws often encourage religious affiliations to stay localized in the "appropriate" regions.

Also, "Christianity" is not a single religion. It is a group of religions, unlike Islam which is separated into 2 major groups (Shiite and Sunni with the basic difference being how a leader ascends). Christianity has dozens of individual groups varying in size from Roman Catholicism with about 1.1 billion adherents to much smaller groups like the 200,000 or so Amish, each with a very different way of looking at christ, christianity, and the bible.

[Victor Meldrew]

But why are Americans more likely to believe in a god than we are? Why are they more gullible? We are both 2 intelligent nations, who believe in many scientific theories etc.

[Big Al]

But why are Americans more likely to believe in a god than we are? Why are they more gullible? We are both 2 intelligent nations, who believe in many scientific theories etc.

The USA is still a young country. It's never been invaded or bombed on a large scale. It's played a pivotal role in two world wars and is the dominant world power. And the people know it! Americans seem very idealistic to me, and I think such an environment is conducive to religious reverence.

The UK is old, but it was still the dominant world power within distant but living memory. We still punch well above our weight as a small country, but we can't get used to not being Number One any more, or anything like it.

The World Wars weakened Britain almost to the point of senescence, and it often seems as if all we have is the glorious past. WWII in particular made the USA the power it is today, and Americans can look towards a glorious future.

I think Americans feel blessed and fervent and Brits feel cursed and cynical.

Not to mention the fact that the USA's Founding Fathers were Quakers - pretty fundamentalist types. Britain, predates Christianity and has a pagan past - I'm not sure that has completely died out.

Oh, well, I'm rambling ,but I think the reasons for the difference in faith levels in the UK and the US are historical.

[rjh01]

I like the two answers above. Which leads to the next question - what is the future of religion in the USA?

(I have no answers myself)

[kleinjahr]

rjho1: The Prophet Nehemiah Scudder, or perhaps Michael Valentine Smith.
If you don't know the names then reference Robert A. Heinlein.

[Skeptic Ginger]

But why are Americans more likely to believe in a god than we are? Why are they more gullible? We are both 2 intelligent nations, who believe in many scientific theories etc.
I would hypothesize it has to do with aggressive mass marketing and I wouldn't be too complacent. Their goal is the global mission. (http://www.global-mission.org/)

[Victor Meldrew]

Skeptigirl,

my first response was to say "not in our country"!! until I read this on the bbc.co.uk website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4398345.stm

A teachers' union has said it is alarmed by an increase in lessons which teach that Adam and Eve was the literal truth, rather the fable which science believes it to be. The rise in creationism is not just an American phenomenon.

For many British people, belief in a six-day creation seems to be one of those incomprehensibly American quirks, like beef jerky and pledging allegiance to the flag. But a large and growing number of British Christians are defying Darwinist orthodoxy in favour of creationism - the belief that Adam and Eve are the mother and father of humanity.
They are less outspoken than in the US, where a new $25m museum of creationism is being built in Kentucky, but they quietly number hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions.
Dr Monty White tours churches throughout the UK, teaching "the biblical view" that the universe is about 6,000 years old.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

Dr Monty White

"People believe in evolution because they choose to do so," he says. "There is not a shred of real evidence for the evolution of life on earth."
Though he argues his case scientifically, it is fundamentally a religious commitment, a matter of faith in the Bible.
"Evolution is not compatible with Christianity," he insists. "Genesis tells us that death only came into the world because of Adam's sin. There was no death before then, and you can't have evolution without death."
There is a creationist museum in Portsmouth called Genesis Expo, run by the Creation Science Movement (CSM). Children can play with Boris the dinosaur and learn why evolution is scientifically impossible.
'Brainwashing'
Where do Boris and his fellow dinosaurs fit into this worldview?
Many were killed off in Noah's flood and became fossils. Others hung around to scare our ancestors who called them dragons. Bill Cooper, a council member of CSM, argues the 8th Century poem Beowulf records a genuine encounter with a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
The chairman, Dr David Rosevear, says even non-Christian visitors often accept their claims, "in spite of the brainwashing they get from the media".
"Typically," he says, in a statement that would make arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins' blood run cold, "a mother will bring her children round in the holidays and say to me 'Yes, that's pretty much what I always felt'."
How common are such beliefs among UK Christians?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif



Monty White feels he is in a growing minority, David Rosevear in a clear majority. More objectively, the Evangelical Alliance has polled its members, which number about a million.
One-third of those surveyed believe Adam and Eve were created within six days of the start of the universe. Of the other two-thirds, some would accept evolution while others see Adam and Eve being created after six "ages" of creation, rather than six literal days.
Reverend William Gardner of Devonshire Drive Baptist Church in Greenwich is one minister who endorses the creationist view. He says the world was created in six days, several thousand years ago, and he teaches this in church.
Is evolution incompatible with Christianity? "Yes," he says, "because ultimately evolution simply dismisses God."
Before Darwin, creationism was the widely held view

He feels frustrated that the scientific evidence is not treated more seriously. "So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give the impression that only fools believe in creation, when there are many eminent scientists who say there is some evidence of design there."
Most apologists for creationism share this frustration. One of CSM's leaflets rallies support for teaching creation in schools: "The hard-nosed humanism of evolutionism has become entrenched in the British educational system and in society at large. We need your dedicated support to topple it!"
Dr White is less gung-ho, but is saddened and mystified by schools' refusal to set Genesis alongside Darwin. In his university career, there was often open and heated debate on the subject, so why not in the classroom? "I simply don't understand what the problem is. Why can't evolution be criticised in schools?"
Bucking the trend
On the other side of the desk, Mel is 16 and goes to an Anglican church in Leeds. She respects people who don't take Genesis literally, but no one has yet convinced her that evolution is more than a theory.
"People think you're nuts if you don't believe in evolution," she says. "But maybe in 100 years there'll be some new discovery, and people living then will think that everyone today was nuts to believe we evolved from monkeys."
How, at this already sufficiently awkward age, does it feel to be so out of step with the world around you? "If you're a Christian, you have to go against the flow on all kinds of things - sex, smoking and getting drunk. Evolution isn't a big deal really. It doesn't come up a lot."


Oh dear.

[Dave1001]

Most of the rational, intelligent people I know do not have children. I do know quite a few ignorant, woo-embracing, church-attending, single parents though. 4 to be exact, with seven children among them. One of them is even currently pregnant from an unknown source (something tells me it wasnt immaculate conception though).

Maybe South Florida is a bad example...But following your logic from my viewpoint, humanity is doomed.

I am really looking forward to seeing the movie Idiocracy.

[Orb]

I like the two answers above. Which leads to the next question - what is the future of religion in the USA?

(I have no answers myself)

Oprahism

[John Hewitt]

I really have just two comments really. First, it seems to be a fact that our ancestry has become very much more intelligent over the past few million years by a mechanism of sexual selection. There is no reason to expect that to stop soon and, by current measures our IQ is rising by 3 points per decade. I believe this is called the Flynn effect.

Whether or not you believe any particular religion, religion as a general phenomenon is something that seems to be in our makeup. So America is likely to remain religious and those few parts of the world that are presently faithless are likely to rejoin some faithful flock or other.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It may depend on the time frame you look at, John. I don't think many people still believe Zeus throws lightning bolts around. I see the current Evangelical movement as still within a two steps forward one step back (guess which direction we are going ;) ) type of cyclical trend. If you look back in history, religion has had many a revival but advances in science have not really been stopped, and they would almost have to stop for the human race to embrace religion totally.

This may be a frustrating time for the science crowd, but I certainly don't think it is anything permanent. After all, even the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and the Ralph Reeds are likely to pray but still go to the hospital for the latest science can offer them should they need it. They may be too stupid to realize the same genetic research that resulted in the latest cancer treatment required evolutionary theory as its base, but when push comes to shove, do you think they would turn that treatment down if they needed it?

Stem cell research has resulted in breaking ranks and global warming and pollution have as well when those Evangelicals begin to suffer the consequences personally of their anti-science positions. Denial only goes so far before reality interferes.

[Crowbot]

I am really looking forward to seeing the movie Idiocracy.

A dark disturbing look at America that parallels my own life. :D

[JackPT]

There exists right now an extensive and powerful global community that puts everyone in touch, enables almost-instantaneous transfer of data and ideas, and forces reality on us all. It’s getting harder to be a fool. Those religious zealots who choose to mumble against progress, cannot long prevail; their days are numbered by simple Darwinian selection, though we might wish it were a faster process.

I took James Randi to mean that the zealots can no longer isolate their flocks. Some of the high profile ex-Scientology people were liberated by their exposure to information on the Internet that ran counter to doctrine. I'm sure many of the woo-woos that troll posts here are actually curious about views that oppose them. Which is a start. I don't think James Randi was talking about woo-woos being numbered in general, rather specifically those that try to shut out the truth. Whether the truth has any impact is a different matter.

[AgingYoung]

The USA is still a young country.

What country on earth is there that has an older form of government than America?

Gene

edit: the 1800 Act of Union included Ireland under the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That was 24 years after America declared it's independance.

Turkish Empire, existed from 1299 AD to 1923 AD. The boundries of the middle east were carved out of that.